tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News March 2, 2014 11:00am-12:01pm PST
frozen. we could not resist shows casing our own little star. izzy is the gadaughter out of o edit editor, megan. watch out, hollywood. ♪ can't hold back anymore snoefts. i'm chris wallace. the crisis in ukraine deepen as the u.s. warns russia not to try to split the country. >> united states will stand with the international community and there will be costs for any military intervention in ukraine. >> russian troops move into crimea as the interim government accuses the kremlin of an invasion. what happens now? we'll have a live report. and the chair of the house intelligence committee, mike rogers, joins us with the latest. only on "fox news sunday". then a new investigation into irs targeting of conservative groups. we'll talk with house oversight
committee chair darrell issa. he's calling back former irs official lois lerner who has refused to testify. a "fox news sunday" exclusive. and president obama prepares to unveil his new budget with defense cuts and no entitlement reforms. >> it makes no effort to address the drivers of our debt and deficit. >> we'll sit down with leaders of the congressional budget the committee, senator rob portman and congressman chris van hollen. plus arizona governor jan brewer vetoes a bill that would protect religious freedom over gay rights. but other states may take up similar measures. our sunday panel weighs in. and our power players of the week. they are making the please don't touch signs at museums a thing of the past.
all right now on fox "fox news sunda sunday". hello again from fox news in washington. we begin with a fast moving developments in ukraine. president obama spoke with russian president putin and said the u.s. will suspend planning for the g-8 summit in sochi this summer. putin got approval from the russian parliament to send troops into ukraine. and the russians have seized control of the crimean peninsula without firing a shot. ukraine's government says we are on the brink of disaster. and is asking the u.s. and europe for help. let's get the latest now from fox news national security correspondent jennifer griffin. >> chris, military historians say this could be the most dangerous situation in europe since the soviet invasion of czechoslovakia in 1968. president obama spoke by phone with russian president putin for 90 minutes saturday ghaending moscow withdraw its forces back to bases in crimea. the president offered to send international monitors to ukraine, you 00 crane yap officials say thousands of
russian troops have flooded in to crimea, convoys have left their naval base surrounding an the only action is has been to pull out of preparatory meetings for a g-8 summit in sochi this june. ukraine closed its air space to noncivilian aircraft and withdraw its vessels from two bases. ukraine's prime minister appealed to the u.s. and britain to intervene, adding his country is on the brink of disaster, warning this could be the beginning of war. pro russian protests broke out in four cities in eastern ukraine where russian speaking ukrainians asked moscow to defend them, a virtual invitation to putin whose parliament authorized him to use force in a unanimous vote. meanwhile ukraine has called up all men under the age of 40 to prepare to fight. warnings by u.s. officials did not deter russia.
>> i'm closely watching russia's military exercises. >> the intervention would in our judgment be a very grave mistake. >> supreme all lied commander told reporters thursday nato had no military con tip against cities prepared for ukraine. the pentagon says the siame. an emergency meeting is scheduled for today. for more on what happens now, we want to bring in the chair of the house intelligence committee mike rogers. welcome back. >> thanks. >> what is the latest intel, what is happening on the ground in crimea and from your sources, how far does putin intend to go? >> i think he certainly steb established the crimea is something he does not want to lose his influence over and is willing to commit military troop himself. we know he has special shock type troops specially trained and we believe that there are some regular units now on the ground in crimea. >> what is your sense, does putin intend to take back
crimea, does he intend to go further into eastern and southern ukraine which is also very heavily oriented towards the russians, or is he just using this territory now as leverage over whatever the final deal is in ukraine? >> i think this is the most important territory to putin himself. and there is an old expression that russia without the ukraine is a country and russia with the ukraine is an empire. i do believe putin understands that. but the most important part for him is military and strategic and economic impact is the crimean peninsula. so i think that's why you see such an aggressive forceful attempt now to at least build the case for the crimea to allow them to go into the russian federation. >> go into the federation? >> we had an interesting thing happen. the upper chamber in moscow laid out a bill that would allow them to take any part of -- their
portion of any port of tart of 00 cra ukraine into russia. i think clearly they want the crimea.ou ukraine into russia. i think clearly they want the crimea.u ukraine into russia. i think clearly they want the crimea. ukraine into russia. i think clearly they want the crimea.ukraine into russia. i think clearly they want the crimea. >> so annexation? >> so i think they phrased it they would take them. so not a direct annexation. it would be the crimea saying they want to come into russia and they would allow them to do it. that's the way they structured it. >> in his statement on friday, president obama talked about unspecified costs if there was any further intervention. and we understand from the 90 minute phone call yesterday from the oval office between the president and putin that he talked specifically, said that the u.s. is suspending its involvement in preparatory talks for the sochi economic g-8 summit this summer. is any of that going to get putin's attention? >> not even a little bit. if any of that would have gotten
his attention, he wouldn't have been there in the first place. is this is not isolated incident. they're expanding their border. they moved out 11 kilometers in georgia. nobody said a word. this is direct relation to what happened in syria. they thought they did well. they're holding their position. so russia believe there is nothing going to stop them, which is why they have been so aggressive in crimea. there are not a lot of options on the table. and sending more naval forces really not a good idea given that we know that that day has long passed. unless you're intending to use them, i wouldn't send them. so you have now only economic options through the eu. and i would use this them. we shouldn't let the ukraine get to the eu and the united states and did a civil war in the ukraine, but there are lots of raefl good options leading up to that. i would just cancel in sochi. i wouldn't talk about the
planning session. i would cancel it. and i would go into a very aggressive posture on how we hope the ukraine financially, if they can get through their financial troubles, they could survive. >> let's sort of talk big picture. how do you think president obama has been handling relations with russia versus how vladimir putin has been handling relations with the united states? >> i think putin is playing chess and we're playing 's even. if you look at the nuclear negotiations, we got it handed to us. huge mistake especially for our allies in the baltics. when you move down the list in syria, the russians got everything that they needed. they believe they needed in syria. and so they have been running circles around us and i think it's really the naive position on a national security council and the president's advisers that if we just keep giving things to russia, they will finally wake up and say, boy,
united states isn't all that bad. that is completely missing the motivations of why russia does what russia does. and again, they have an interest in expanding their buffer zones by influence. i don't think by russian occupation. but by influence in cases like the crimea and other places that it's in their interests to keep pushing out the buffer zone. and the big one that started this was the absolute retreat on our missile defense system in poland and czechoslovakia. caused huge problems for our al lies and emboldened the russians and it's been a downhill slide since. >> you say sending u.s. ships to the black sea probably doesn't make sense. you say that we should just boycott the g-8 summit in sochi. would you kick russia out of the g-8? how tough would you get in terms of economic trade and commercial transactions with russia? >> i clearly would start the process to remove them from the g-8. and i would do it in a very
public way with milestones that they could either meet or lose their opportunity continue serving the g-8. i don't believe russia believes that is always in their number one best interests. they still have eventual will and i know people say they lost their leverage on gas and energy. don't believe that is exactly true. they still have that. so, yes, that would be something that would be a little bit embarrassing to putin along the way. they ought to start that process now and be aggressive about it. you have russian troops in the crimea. it's a serious problem for the stability of the ukraine and i said argue other parts of europe. so we have to be aggressive now and those are the kinds of aggressive things that you can do that doesn't involve the u.s. navy. >> if the president fails to moving a agrees safely, as you would have him do, should congress move on its own to start toim pose some of the sanctions? >> i think we should. i think we're obligated to do that. and we ought to -- we should put packages together that ramp it up. if you recall, all of the sanctions that happened on iran
happened in congress. president acquiesced. doesn't support them, become acquiesced. i think congress will have to play an important role if we believe it's important to tone down the military options of civil war in the ukraine. >> finally, looking at president obama, looking at vladimir pure continue, how do you see this ending? what will happen in ukraine? >> well, nobody has that magic ball. i would believe that the russians would love to see the crimea as a part of the russian federation. it was there until 1954 when it was given to the soviet republic of the ukraine at the time. i think they would like it back. it's strategic for them militarimilitar militarily and economically. >> and you don't see putin backing down? >> i don't believe there is a good solution unless he can maintain his influence. he'll withdrawal his troops if he can maintain his flew the way he did in other places. >> chairman rogers, thanks for
coming in today. of course we'll continue to monitor developments in ukraine. for the record, we invited secretary of state kerry to join us today. but although the white house put him out on all the other broadcast sunday shows, they declined to make him available to us or you. up next, former irs official lois lerner refused to testify about the targeting of conservative groups. now darrell issa wants to question her again based on new information he's uncovered. we'll have an exclusive interview. you really love, what would you do?" ♪ [ woman ] i'd be a writer. [ man ] i'd be a baker. [ woman ] i wanna be a pie maker. [ man ] i wanna be a pilot. [ woman ] i'd be an architect. what if i told you someone could pay you and what if that person were you?
♪ when you think about it, isn't that what retirement should be, paying ourselves to do what we love? ♪ to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to take more pills. ♪
yup. another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap. purina pro plan can help him drachieve it. ♪ driving rock/metal music stops ♪music resumes music stops ♪music resumes [announcer] purina pro plan's bioavailable formulas deliver optimal nutrient absorption. [whistle] rina pro plan. nutrition that performs.
lerner refusing to testify last may about her role in the targeting of conservative groups seeking tax exempt status. this after the inspector general found 298 applications had been singled out for special review including 100% of groups with tea party or patriot in their name, but only 30% of groups with progress or progressive. now republican congressman darrell issa, chair of the powerful house oversight committee wantslern s lerner to testify again wednesday. chairman issa, welcome back. >> thanks for covering what we believe is going to be a good fact finding hearing. >> well, let's talk about that. because when you recalled lois lerner under subpoena to testify again this coming wednesday, her lawyers said you you can call her, but she won't testify or answer any questions, continue to at that time fifttaat that t. >> her attorney indicates how
that she will testify. we've been back and forth negotiation. wi believe the evidence we've gathered causes her in her best interests to testify. >> so lowislerner who took the fifth last may will testify before your committee? >> according to her attorney. >> this will be on wednesday? >> it will be on wednesday. >> what changed her mind? did you give her immunity for her testimony? was she frightened by the possibility of contempt? >> we really don't know. what we do know is that during the intervening period, we enter trued all the people around her to build a case for why she is at the center of this targetingd her to build a case for why she is at the center of this targeting. why it wasn't sin subpoena cinc said in your opener, it wasn't liberal and conservative group, it was groups targeted first by their name and then later would i lois lerner's z insistence by
objective statements. >> you did not offer her immunity for this testimony? >> we condition. >> is it your understanding that she will answer all questions that you and the committee have about her involvement in the targeting of conservative groups? >> that is our understanding. and as you know, our committee did vote that she had waved her fifth amendment rights when she made verbatim statements under oath about not having broken any rules and regulations and authenticated other statements. >> all right. so let's get to where the rubber hits the road. what questions do you have for lois lerner, what will you ask her, what do you hope she will tell you? >> well, we know what she did in most cases. what we don't know is why she did it. what we do understand of course is this is someone who came from the federal election commission. she came with a bias towards groups having to disclose. 501-c 4s are different in that because they do not primarily do
election nearing, if you will, they come not have on disclose their donors. and that seems to be one of the questions thatnearing, if you w they come not have on disclose their donors. and that seems to be one of the questions that could lead us to understand why a liberal individual who favored disclosure wanted to make sure that tea party groups had to disclose who their donors were. >> when you say you want to know why she did it, do you want to know does it end with her or does it go high youer up? >> we know some of the things she said, how they either acquiesced to it or chafed against the things she was asking them to do. we do really want to know that burning question of who else knew about it, who else coordinated, and candidly i think the american people want to know that it won't happen again. and that will be the harder part. the ways and means committee and others to do is to put in checks and balances so that no one person if it is this fact one person can ever lead the targeting of somebody for audits or for this kind of treatment of
not giving them a fair yes or no on an application. >> let me ask you, and obviously when she testifies wednesday you'll know a lot more about this, do you think it's possible that it's just one person that this targeting began -- didn't he said, but began with lois lerner? >> there were other people who knew or should have known better and went along with it. but certainly she was in a powerful position and very well could have been mostly acting on her own. but again, there should have been safe guards to see this. the accumulation of not just some but every single application if it included tea party or patriot, that flies in the face of managers doing their job to oversee somebody at the irs. you have to hold people accountable knowing that they're human, that there will be people doing wrong in government, there have to be checks and balances. and if it's the irs, you'd better believe the american people from the aclu to the nra across the spectrum want to make sure that politics stay out of the irs.
>> we have received a draft copy of a report that has been written by the house republicans on your committee and i want to put up part of that. in the executive summary, you, house republicans, say she was keenly aware of acute political pressure to crack down on conservative-leaning organizations. congressman issa, pressure from whom? >> that is one of our questions. she said things like "they" put pressure. so e-mails indicate there was e president shaking his fingers over citizens united or whether -- >> during the state of the union address 37. >> during the state of the union. where she felt the pressure. only she can tell us where she felt that pressure was. >> the report also cites a newly discovered e-mail from september 16, 2010 in which will he lir they discusses how to check whether they're engaged in
improper political -- this is an e-mail to other people in the irs. she says we need to have a plan, we need to be cautious so it isn't a per se political project. what do you think that e-mail shows? >> well, it's a series of e-mails. when you read them in context, what you realize is she's trying to walk back any kind of ability for someone to look at the record and say, ha-ah, this was political targeting. and yet it clearly is political targeting. >> now, there is a new effort under way, the irs promulgated a regulation under which it would impose new boundaries on what these 0501-c 4s, social welfare groups applying for tax exempt status, new limits on how much political activity they can be involved in and the administration and ir is the r this as a reaction to the skap gallon. like this is what we're doing to try to clear up the scandal. i gotter you've gotten information that this began long before the scandal broke? good exactly.
lois lerner was part of the project of targeting conservative groups, delaying and cracking down on existing ones. and then the rule k4i7k was worked back all the way at that result of citizen united, their attempt to get what they don't have and couldn't get through the ir scht s. >> on super bowl sunday, bill o'reilly talked president obama about the targeting and here is that exchange. >> there were some bonehead decisions. >> bonehead decisions, but not mass corruption? >> not even a smidgeon of corruption. >> now, there are six current investigations going on of the ir sfi rchir irs scandal, four inside congress, two inside the administration, one treasury, one justice department. a couple of questions. one, have any of those investigations been completed and cleared the irs of
wrongdoing, and what do you think of the president stating there is not a smidgeon of corruption? >> well, he'll have to define smimg on and corruption for all of us. because there certainly is real evidence that there was wrongdoing and that wrongdoing was not in cincinnati but in fact in washington, d.c.. >> let me point out just quickly that when you talk about cincinnati, there was the initial allegation was this was a rogue office, an irs office in cincinnati and that they were responsible for all of this. >> exactly. and that is where the president is reintroducing things that have already been disapproach. but let's understand, this is an administration that wants to have you believe a video launched the benghazi murders. when in fact that was disproven. and even after it was reintroduced by this administration again and again, including by this president, senator feinstein and the senate democrats have made it clear that the factors that led to that had a lot more to do than
terrorism than it ever would a video. >> that brings up my final question. you have come under fire both in the irs and benghazi for political witch hunts. and they point specifically to a speech you gave to gop fund-raiser in new hampshire in february about the benghazi terror attack. here is a clip. >> why there was not one order given to turn on one department of defense asset, i have my suspicions which is secretary clinton totally on the stand down. >> but the "washington post" fact checker cited that bipartisan report you had, that there were no stand down orders and also no evidence that clinton ever spoke to leon panetta, then defense secretary. and for the second time, they gave you four pi nokias which is their highest level of falsehood. how do you respond to that?
>> well, first of all, first one was for quoting something that was in somebody else's report believing that it was true. which is an mush way to get four pi nokios. but in this case, the secretary of state was responsible for this normalization policy that existed in benghazi. witnesses have told thaws they asked for help. the president himself i implied that he told leon panetta then secretary of defense to use what efforts they could and what we know for a fact is not one aircraft, not one rescue of d.o.d. was launched to get there in that 8 1/2 hours. >> but to be honest, you do not have any evidence that secretary clinton told leon panetta to stand down. >> well, the use in answering questions in a political fund-raiser, that was in response to a question, the term stand down is not used in an explicit way, but rather the failure to react. the fact that only state department assets and only assets inside the country were
ever used, that members of the armed forces, gun carry, trained people were not allowed to get on the aircraft and go and attempt to rescue, those kinds of things through state department resources represent a stand down. not maybe on the technical terms of stand down, soldier, but on what the american people believe is a failure to respond when they could have. >> all right. congressman issa, thank you. thank you so much for coming in today. and again, we want to point out the big news, and the big news is that lois lerner, according to her attorney, is going to waive her fifth amendment rights and will testify before issa's house oversight committee this week. thank you for the news and we'll be following the hearing. >> thank you, chris. also this week, the white house releases its budget with controversial proposals for domestic spending increases, but big defense cuts. we'll discuss it with two budget leaders, senator rob portman and congressman chris van holhollen.
tell us what you think on facebook and share your favorite moments from today's show. when you have diabetes like i do, you want a way to help minimize blood sugar spikes. support heart health. and your immune system. now there's new glucerna advance with three benefits in one. [ male announcer ] new glucerna advance. from the brand doctors recommend most.
tuesday plb unveils his 2015 budget calling for an end to the era of austerity. and wild we've just seen an outline so far, there is already a fierce debate here in washington. joining us now, members of both congressional budget committees from the senate, ohio republican rob portman, and from the house, maryland democrat advichris vane p. president obama calls for new spending or investment as he calls it. let's put some of the details on the screen. he proposes $56 billion for job training, manufacturing hubs and early childhood education. and $300 billion for new infrastructure projects, he would pay for all this through
closing corporate loopholes. and here's how he will sell it. >> as democrats, we believe instead of more tax breaks for the few, we should make investments that grow the economy for everyone. >> senator portman, what do you think of the new budget? >> well, i think if that's correct, chris, it's really sad because we're looking at two things. one is incredibly slow economic growth. slowest recovery we've had since world war ii. we just saw that the fourth quarter numbers were adjusted downward. so we know last year's growth was far below the year before. we also know that unemployment is extremely high. we know that we have a record number of people on long term unemployment. so our economy is hurting. the last two months jobs numbers were the worst we've had in three years. so we need new economic growth, not new taxes. new taxes will make it harder to grow the economy. second we know because the congressional budget office just told us a week or so ago that we have record levels of debt and growing levels of debt, another $10 trillion added to our debt in the next ten years.
and we get back up to a trillion dollars a year in deficit during that time period. and yet the president saying, no, we'll put more taxes on the economy and we're not going to deal with the get and deficit. >> let me bring in congressman van hollen. the president, one of the reasons he says we can afford new spending even though this is paid for is because the deficit is going down. but congressman, that only tells part of the story. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the deficit does grop this year and next, but then if you look in the outyears it starts to go up again and reaches over $1 trillion again by 2022. >> that's right. if i could just say a quick word on the ukraine, chris, in response to the earlier section. i think we're 48 hours to an international crisis. i would hope americans would focus on condemning the actions of putin rather than in a knee jerk way criticizing the president obama. let's stand together on this. with respect to the president's budget, he does exactly what we should be doing.
right now as rob said, we have seen economic growth, but we're not where we want to be. we need to be clicking on all cylinders which is why the president has said let's end some of the tax breaks that actually encourage u.s. companies to move jobs overseas, use those savings to invest in infrastructure here at home. let's build the backbone of our infrastructure, our roads, our port, our airports, our broadband. that is what we need to compete. the president recognizes that we have to deal with the long term deficit issues which is why his budget as they have indicated will reduce those long term deficits to below 2% of gdp. >> and then it goe s back up. >> they're on a downward trajectory. >> no, we just showed goes up over a trillion dollars. >> we're talking about the deficits. >> the deficits go up. >> the president will submit his budget in a couple days. no one has actually seen it.
>> i'm sorry, senator portman? >> chris, look, we clearly have a growing debt problem and everybody says this is the most predictable economic crisis in the country's history. we have to deal with it. the president refuses to. if you look at his budget last year, it barely had deficit reduction relative to what would happen otherwise. in other words, there was a slight decrease in the deficit. you would hope there would be a significant one. but the only reason there was was because he had a provision in there about a more accurate measure of inflation under the cpi and social security. we now hear that he's actually going to take that out of the budget at a time when social security has a $63 billion shortfall every year, at a time again when we're told by this nonpart sap congressional budget office things are getting worse, not better. so if he takes that out as apparently he'll do businessed on the leaks because it's partisan political year, he's not going to have any can he have deficit reduction. so if that is true, boy, again, this is not responsible.he have deficit reduction. so if that is true, boy, again, this is not responsible. this is not responsive to what is really happening.
>> let me bring in congressman van hollen. what we're talking about by far the biggest part of the budget and that is entitlements. last year as part of the budget, the president included chain cpi, a slower measure of inflation. this year he's taking that out. regardless of the rest of the economy, the fact is that the entitlements are running out of money and you're taking out a way to save money. >> two things on that. i find it curious that right now as we interest, many republicans are telling the president and cm is that we should not end some of the overpayments to the private insurers and medicare system.some of the overpayments private insurers and medicare system. which will drive up long term deficits. >> can we stick on-of. >> absolutely. i happen to think that on the merits i have concerns with it, but the president included that. as part of a package he said
republicans should join me in at least closing some tax loophole, everyone one, for the purpose of reducing our long term deficit. republicans couldn't i had a single tax loophole that they would play for the purpose of deficit reduction. so rob says they're concerned about reducing the deficit, but they wouldn't close one tax loophole. >> i get your point. the fact is the president made it clear when he included chain cpi in the budget last year it was a bargaining chip and the argument is, and there is a point to it, the gop refused to make the bargain. >> look, that's ridiculous with all due respect. chain cpi has huge tax increases in it. changes ben feficiaries and changes the way the tax brackets are indexed for inflation.
therefore, it has almost as much tax increase in it as it has -- >> i'm confused. i thought republicans were for chain cpi. are you now saying you're against it? >> no, what i'm saying is that democrats who say you can't touch chain cpi luns you raise taxes should know that chain cpe has within it tax increases because of the indexing of the brackets. so it's a ridiculous argument. it is this balanced if you want balance the way the president wants to do it which is to have taxes and some important restraints on spending,this bal balance the way the president wants to do it which is to have taxes and some important restraints on spending, second this president has gotten plenty of tax increases -- >> i don't mean to interrupt, but i want to cover one last area. and there is one area where there were big cuts, and that is to the pentagon. defense secretary hagel says that he would shrink the army from a post- 9/11 high of 570,000 to less than 450,000 which would be the smallest army since 1940.9/11 high of 570,000 to less than 450,000 which would be the smallest army since 1940.
congressman van hole p, you talk about russian aggression in ukraine, should we be shrinking the army to pre-world war ii levels? >> i don't think we need an army that is supposed to support two overseas ground wars that we're winning at the same time. i think you can respond to the threats as they a rise with the lower are army. you still have the air force, the navy, a very large army to go with it. and the other point i'd make is part of the budget agreement that was reached in a bipartisan way calls for reductions in defense spending through fiscal year 2015. the president has actually said he doesn't think that defense spending is enough which is why he's proposed additional funds, paid for by tax -- >> i have to call time on you because we have less than a minute left for senator portman. smallest army since 1940? >> it's a problem. and again, you look at what is happening in the ukraine. but also look beyond ukraine and look at what is happening with
china and the middle east. we could not have done the surge in iraq in my view with an army that size. so this is a problem and we need to be sure that these changes in the againdefense budget are consistent with what we need to do around the world, and the united states is still in position to lead around the world. so this is incredibly important that we get this right. yes, i agree that we need to be sure where would e're restraini spends and everything is on the table, but i do think this makes it more difficult to project force around the world. >> senator portman, congressman van hollen, thank you both. we have to squeeze a lot in. >> thank you. next up, arizona governor jan brewer veto as bill that would have allowed businesses to deny services to gays for religious reasons. but it's not dead in other states. our panel discusses that and the latest from ukraine. and what would you like to ask
any violation of ukraine's sovereignty would be deeply destabilizing which is not in the interests of ukraine, russia or europe. >> president obama on friday warning russia of costs if military force is used in ukraine. and it's time now for our sunday group. syndicated columnist george will, a lease bee back of the hill, former republican senator scott brown and former democratic senator evan bayh. what is your sense of how far putin and the russians are willing to go in ukraine?
and what can president obama do? >> he'll into as far as he can go to preserve ukraine because it's the key to their great power status.nto as far as he co to preserve ukraine because it's the key to their great power status.gonto as far as he can go to preserve ukraine because it's the key to their great power status.to as far as he ca go to preserve ukraine because it's the key to their great power status.o as far as he cano to preserve ukraine because it's the key to their great power status. as far as he can go to preserve ukraine because it's the key to their great power status. what can we do? we can begin by recognizing that russia is a third world country with first world military. but in terms of its economic infrastructure, it's very vulnerable. and we have what they need which is access to our banking system, credits, and the flow of world capital. that we can influence and that we can do. how important is it? 100 years ago, in central europe, there was a spark from which the world is still trying to recover and europe will never recover, first world war. here we have this week we've seen armed forces cross an international border in the center of europe. this is serious business. >> senator byah, president obama
talked about unspecified costs if there was military intervention. there now has been military intervention. the president spoke with putin for 90 minutes on the phone and the only specific thing we've heard is that the u.s. will suspend preparatory talks. not the actual summit. preparatory talks for the g-8 summit in sochi this summer. should the president be more specific and much tougher about economic sanctions? >> chris, there are no easy options here. and you look at what happened in georgia a decade or so ago when george w. bush was president and people never accused him of being soft. there just weren't many things that he could do ultimately. so you can do symbolic things threaten to withdraw from the preparatory talks, but putin won't care about that. you can do some financial thing which is george mentioned if we could get the cooperation of the
europeans could really penalize the russians. but that would require the europeans to make sacrifices which they have been reluctant to do. or more likely we could look at other spheres of influence and step up our thing there is to try to replace the assad regime. but to directly intervene, there is not much that we can do that american people are willing to pay the price for. >> senator brown, what can and should the president, and the weather, because this isn't sdwrjust a u.s. issue, do? >> you can't do it alone. military options are off the table. no one wants another war. when you're speaking to people and just last night i was out and talked to folks and they say what do you you think about what the president is doing with ukraine. they kind of chuckle. because of what we've had and what we've seen with obviously syria with the red line issues, with benghazi, with fast and furious, with obama care.
there is always these empty threats. so there is a problem of credibility. and i don't think putin really cares what president obama says or does. the key i agree with george and evan, economic issues, withholding certain opportunity its is where you're going to get the best bang for your buck. and we can't do it alone. we need to do it with our european partners. >> there was, and ukraine is obviously the central story this week, but there was another big story this week and that was in arizona where that state's governor, jan brewer, vetoed a bill that would have given businesses the right to refuse services to various people on the basis, largely gays at least the indications were, on the basis of religious freedom and religious convictions. here is the governor first and then president obama reacting to her decision. >> i've not heard one example in arizona where business owners religious liberty has been
violated. >> some states, they're so far in the past, they're pushing laws to legalize segregation based on sexual orientation. >> you can see the president obviously wants to continue this conversation. and the fact is, conservative groups are pushing similar matters to the one that was vetoed in arizona in oklahoma, in missouri, mississippi, and kansas. where do you see this going? >> well, we've actually counted ten states that are considering similar legislation to arizona's, including florida where rick scott, who is running for the election, came out and said he would vie toe the measure which is very interesting from rick scott in florida. i think we're likely to see democrats try to exploit this because it is an issue that is dividing the top from the bottom of the republican party. the major interests, business interests, national republican leaders are divided from the issue just as they are on many others includes the extension of
medicare. so this election cycle will not likely to be friendly to them emphasize the issue. >> i think it's fair to say there are deeply felt positions on deeply self-sufficient on both sides of this debate. religious freedoms versus day right. we asked all of you for questions we got this on facebook. with as many taxes as businesses have to pay, how does this government think they have any justification to tell a business who they will and won't be serve? >> how, george, how do you generally come down on this issue of religious freedoms versus gay right? >> free exercise of religion. the clash of rights. 50 years ago this year in one of the surely the great legislative freedoms of american history we passed the civil rights act. if you open your doors in the united states, you open it to
everybody. that's the subtle issue. the procedure of that law has been obtain and i think that's where the american people come down. that said, it's a funny kind of sore winner in the gay rights movement that would say a photographer doesn't want to photograph my weddingin. but i've got lots of other photographers but i'm going to use the hammer of government to force them do this. it's not neighborly and it's not gay rights. they should be not sore winners. >> i understand that, having understood your point, you do say if a gay couple wants to go into a bakery and have a wedding cake, the bakery should have to bake the cake. >> bake the cake. >> senator brown, your thoughts on that? >> i thought it was appropriate for governor brewer to veto the law. there are both people on both sides of the very difficult
issue. debt, spending, taxes, jobs, national security, energy, what's happening in our foreign policy, the democrats obviously want to use this. they clearly want to use it as a divisive issue to use as a tactical advantage in the upcoming election. everything they've done up to this point, especially with the obamacare rollout. and focusing on the things that matter. right now, those items that i listed people are going to be speaking in 14 elections. and hold folks accountable for those decisions. >> i can just see the e-mails click into the website saying, wait a minute, this matters, it matters because i'm genuinely offended by the idea of marriage between two people of the same sex. and if i don't want to participate in a wedding so to say, i don't want to do it. >> i understand.
if you're talking politics, first of all, it's not the law of arizona that's vetoed. however, everybody has the right to debate and make their own personal decisions. and then they'll play out as they did in arizona. if you're talking strictly political, the democrats want to focus on everything put obamacare and the economy. >> things must be great in arizona if this is the most important thing to focus on. number two, substantively, george is right, if you're open to the public, you're open to all of the public. if you want to do something less than that, stay private. and number three, it's a political matter. it's madness for the republicans. it divides them. it offended moderates. they should focus on the economy. thank you, panel. up next, power players of the week, bringing the smithsonian not only into your home but into your hands. it's very cool. oyable way to get your fiber. oyable try phillips fiber good gummies. they're delicious, and a good source of fiber
the smithsonian institution has been called the nation's attic. 19 museums, the research centers and the national zoo. you can ehighlight from the collection like never before. here are our power players of the week. >> our 3d program, what we're able to do, take down the walls of the smithsonian. >> with experience, that will always be relevant. but you can complement that with being able to look at something
online and 3d print it and actually hold it in your hand. >> reporter: alan and richie are digitalization officers at the smithsonian. but their colleagues call them laser cowboys. they capture 337 million objects and put them online on 3d. allowing you to experience them in way you can't even inner. . take, for example, this map of abraham lincoln. >> i'm at the optimal distance for a 3d scanner. >> they take an armed scanner and take it a laser across the map. >> oh, my gosh, here it is showing up. that is unbelievable. >> so you can see an object like this, the abraham lincoln life, it's 15 or 20 minutes. >> now, if you go to the smithsonian website, you can manipulate the object and see things you can't see in the museum. >> you're able to manipulate that just with a regular mouse? >> yep.
i can actually pull up the two life maps that were taken of lincoln in office, while he was still alive. so on the left here, this one scan, this was taken in the remaining months of the civil war. and this is the last taken just before the civil war. >> what you can really see how much he had aged? >> exactly. they started this program three years ago, and so far, they've put 21 objects only. the original wright brothers flier. anni an sbrik indiana tra kitly carved. >> i can pull out for the curvature and see everything that's happening. in so many greater detail than if you with it. >> and remember the lincoln? you can download and get an exact copy on a 3d printer in y.
>> it's almost a mechanical object where you can scan. >> vincent was a sculpture, alan, a painter. they used to help create exhibits. >> sort of nights and on the weekend, we started that. >> scanning with software with hollywood in mind. or c.t. scanners developed for the medical industry. we're trying to alie that to the museum world. >> so far, the process is slow and labor intensive. but the laser cowboys have big plans. >> perhaps we're going to start introd robots and assembly lines. we want to start introducing hundreds of object the at a time. and then start thinking about thousands of objects. >> like i said, pretty cool. to experience smith seasonian x 3d, go to the website. that's it for today.
have a gre w fox news sunday is a presentation of fox news. this week on "the journal editorial report" you questions about just how seriously the justice department is taking the irs targeting preeb, as a new rule restricting political speech, has the agency come under fire from liberals and conservatives? plus, a serious proposal to overhaul the tax code for the first time in twiyears. but is there any hope for congressional action this year. and the pentagon proposes to slash the army to its smallest size in the last 75 years. how risky are the cuts for american security. welcome to "the journal